Monday, July 09, 2012

You'll Never Guess What I Talked About On The "Post-Movie Podcast"

My esteemed colleagues Steve Head and John Black graciously invited me back on "The Post-Movie Podcast" (which everybody should be downloading and reviewing on iTunes) over the weekend. Our discussion focused, of course, mostly on "The Amazing Spider-Man;" which I can only assume will provide further aggravation for people who are shocked - shocked! - that persons whose job is largely dependant on viewership and exposure choose to "dwell on" the most popular, noteworthy and heavily-searched movie on the planet at the moment...

47 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Both times now that I've tried to check out these podcasts that you've linked too on twitter I've been given virus warnings about that site. Whats the deal with that? I'd love to hear your podcast but this shit is not cool.

Bob, I also feel like something was lost about TASM in translation and the whole thing seemed like a mess. It probably had something to do with cutting the entire parental subplot. But I feel compelled to post this, and I think you should watch it:

Just a warning, they do offer a spoiler warning during the podcast, but I figured I would offer one here as well so you know ahead of time if you don't want any based on the movie.

@Anon #1, it might have something to do with your anti-virus program and launching iTunes, for I get a large warning about opening an application from a webpage using Chrome. I might be able to give some additional help if you don't mind sharing your AV and browser.

Thanks for the reply Steven. I assumed it was my fault and merely a co-incidence the first time a while back. It happened again today when I tried and I got the same warning but now I am on a completely new computer with different anti virus software (from AVG to Avast). I've scanned my computer with Avast and Spybot and its perfectly clean so I have no idea why I'm getting the virus warning. Just as soon as I open up the page I get warnings popping up saying it'd detected a virus as soon as the page loads. Sorry I can't be more help I'm hoping its just some weird error with an odd file of some sort or something registering a false negative but as its happened twice in completely different circumstances I'm wary to believe that.

It's standard perfectionist fanboyism that places way too much value in the nebulous numbers of "how much does the world like this", can't stand the thought of somebody not accepting the gospel, and thinks they're doing good by forcibly converting people to the holy scripture of their favorite entertainment. It's irrational arguing and the sooner you recognize that, the better off you'll be.

And before anybody throws a fit, let it just be said that only a person with a piss poor argument attacks the credibility of their opponent over picking apart the flaws of their reasoning.

@JPArbiter It's very telling that people like you who defend Bob on this can only do so by misrepresenting the criticism laid out against him. Either you have reading comprehension issues or you know that the only way to defend Bob is to dumb down completely why he was criticized for his behavior on this movie. I and others made it clear what the issue was many times.

Hell, even Bob has done so as well in the responses he has made by purposely dumbing down what people are actually coming down on him on.

And by the way, I tried listening to some of this pod cast and found it to be a waste of time. All it is is a circle jerk of Bob and the others talking about how much they dislike this movie.

Apparently, Bob's 2 plus years of bashing this project (yes, even before it was filmed) was not enough. Bob's 2 Escape To The Movies reviews on this movie weren't enough. Bob linking to that disgrace of a "film journalist/reviewer" Devin Faraci's website wasn't enough. Now Bob wants us to listen to him and a bunch of others basically regurgitate the same crap Bob's been beating everyone over the head with again which has already been challenged several times by others in the comment section of this blog.

If Bob wants to be interesting why doesn't he engage in a debate with an intelligent person who disagrees with him on this movie? He could've done so the many times in the comment sections on his blog for this movie. You know, where people actually responded to the things he mentioned in his "reviews" that had him being challenged and corrected?

Instead Bob wants to do a grown up version of a child plugging his ears and yelling at the top of his lungs.

Bob reports on films during production all the time and addresses them with a positive or negative opinion where he sees fit. The Amazing Spider-Man is also a property that lines up with this blog's (and The Escapist's) sort of aesthetic (that being what is colloquially referred to as "nerd culture".) To say Bob has been "bashing" the film since it was announced may be accurate (although I would take issue with the semantics of that statement), but I don't see why that's a problem in itself, or how it is indicative of "bias". When he first talked about the issues surrounding Sam Raimi's exit from the Spider-Man franchise, he didn't address issues of story, character design, tone, direction, or writing, because to do so would be totally premature and without any factual grounding. He just expressed an opinion relating to what he saw as an isolated injustice. Likewise, when he expressed concern with Spider-Man's costume design before the release, he didn't prematurely criticize Andrew Garfield's performance. These are examples, but my point is that although he may have criticized the production of this film in any number of instances, those criticisms were never illogically derived or unjustly executed. I don't think he gave the film an unfair shake ahead of time, because I think he treated everything he criticized as being self-derived, meaning that he didn't make any claims about any aspect of the film's production that weren't presented via facts, photos, video clips, or trailers, and his criticism of any of those individual things didn't involve a sort of prejudice against any of the others.

"It's very telling that people like you who defend Bob on this can only do so by misrepresenting the criticism laid out against him. Either you have reading comprehension issues or you know that the only way to defend Bob is to dumb down completely why he was criticized for his behavior on this movie. I and others made it clear what the issue was many times."

In comes Aiddon doing the exact same thing again.

And motyr read my posts I made before about this issue. I laid his prejudice out crystal clear:

I read your posts, I respect your opinions, but my post still stands. Whether I agree or disagree with what you have had to say is irrelevant, because I still think you're failing to prove Bob's "bias".

"Come to me; shitty-looking, unecessaery remake of "Spider-Man"... I want to BASK in your pain. "

What do you call that if not "bias", prejudice, bashing the film before he even saw it, walking into the movie wanting to hate it, etc...?

And another thing this "isolated injustice" you describe it as, I mentioned that a couple of times too. Bob purposely never told the whole story or conveniently didn't know it. He kept making it seem as if Sony just didn't want to give up the Spider-Man rights just because. If you read what I wrote before then you would know the facts and not describe it as "isolated injustice" because that is not what it was at all.

Right up there with you. At first I thought about directly addressing Bob as well. But as you pointed out, he's made up his mind about this film, and I might as well be talking to a brick wall at this point. Bottom line though is you and I liked it and he hated it and those of us who disagree with him will just have to accept it. But he knows A LOT of people disagree with him and that the film is continuing to make money. And if he says he's okay with that, well then :shrug: hey, what else can I say? But I will, however argue to my dying breath with him about how I thought this movie was better.

I do find it interesting, though that one of the tings he hates the most about it is his perception of the "Grim n' Gritty" approach that this movie seems to take with the Spider-Man mythos. And that he seems predicating his argument on the basis that since superheroes were initially made for children, they can't be taken seriously. And while I do agree that the '90s kind of overdid it by making them too serious in some cases, I have to disagree in general with that assertion. Personally, I don't think it's possible to write superhero comics the way that they used to originally without writing down to a kids' level. And I'm sorry, but as an adult, I don't want that. And in fact, when I first started reading comics seriously, Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns were among the first.

I think it is possible to write superhero stories that can work for an adult reader. I think in particular that Geoff Johns has done remarkable things at DC, first with Green Lantern, and later with Justice League and Aquaman.

I also find it interesting that he said a "realistic" approach to Spider-Man doesn't work (Though personally, I didn't think this movie was any more realistic than the previous ones. Darker and more serious, though, to be sure.) Yet he seems to have no problem with Nolan's Batman movies. And while I enjoy them, I'm still not 100% enamored with that more realistic take. Batman is just as ridiculous: you're talking about a guy who dresses up in a bat costume and fights a guy who looks like a clown. I don't see how that's any more or less outlandish than Spider-Man.

In fact, if you watch his latest Big Picture, a lot of the things he enumerates on in Batman Forever that work in the film also happen to be the things I like about it as well, and why I think it's probably the best of the pre-Nolan Batman films. Yet hoe doesn't seem to want to cut Spider-Man the same amount of slack.

"And another thing this "isolated injustice" you describe it as, I mentioned that a couple of times too."

I'm not describing it as an "isolated injustice", I'm purposely staying far away voicing my own opinions with regards to The Amazing Spider-Man and whatever goes along with its production. I'm describing Bob's viewpoint and commentary - he saw Raimi's ousting as an injustice, but, simultaneously, he saw it as an isolated event at the time. What I mean to say is that his outrage was not without reason, and opinions without actual reasons are what we would define as "bias". When he criticized Sony, he didn't say the "rebooted Spider-Man" would suck, he said that Raimi being screwed sucked. That's the key distinction here - Bob's opinions before seeing the movie do not equal a display of "bias".

Also, I hate to get into it here, but you've neglected the context of those tweets - they aren't without some sort of justification (however they are quite reactionary, of course).

@Lord Slithor Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with you. This isn't about Bob disliking the movie. I've said this movie I've disagreed with him before but it didn't bother me. Bob at his best is insightful and interesting. However he has been in this whole TAS affair anything but. He sunk to the very levels he criticizes in his numerous videos about so called fanboys reacting illogically and childishly. He likes to take that to task but just ignores it completely when he is being called on it here.

It seems to me that it is more personal than him crusading to maintain whatever he might claim these characters were originally created for. Not only do I not agree with that because of the very storylines that even existed in the original runs did tackle mature themes (e.g. Harry Osborn becoming a drug addict) but also because it seems to me that it's Bob's personal taste. He prefers light, fluffy, happy go lucky, cheesy, safe, comedic takes on almost everything.

Go back to that Big Picture episode on the Ninja Turtles, which also includes an episode of his hypocrisy by telling others to stop acting immature. Despite the original concept of the Ninja Turtles being dark, gritty and mature Bob not only preferred the kid friendly version but he outright dismissed those that desire to see an adaptation of the original comic book versions. So you see it really doesn't matter to him what the original intent was. Bob wants the majority of things to be light, fluffy, corny and kid friendly.

This is a guy who worships at the alter of Super Mario Bros and thinks that almost everything should be a version of that. That's why his TAS reviews were so bad. The best arguments he could mount were in no way logical or based on anything real. He was flat out making stuff up like saying that Ben's death being caused by Peter's immaturity is also the plot to Batman Begins even though Bruce was never acting immature when his parents died. It was a forced projecting of his tastes and his 2 year built up hate for it.

P.S. Although it is like communicating with a brick wall, Bob did acknowledge your comment in his twitter about you thinking about submitting an application at the Escapist. Not sure if you were aware.

@motyr Your defense of Bob is quite contrived. He did not isolate the Raimi incident with his thoughts on this movie. You tell me that I am not taking this tweets in the proper context despite the fact that Bob explicitly states in them that he was rooting against the movie precisely because of how it came about:

You pretty much it the nail right on the head there. At the end of the day, I think ultimately our differences boil down to stylistic takes. Like you said, he prefers the lighthearted, campy stuff, whereas you and I seem to prefer at the very least more serious and mature takes on the material. Considering that many have pointed out that the Raimi movies took their cues from the earlier comic books of the '60s, that makes sense. Whereas TASM seems to draw more from the '70s onward. In short, Bob prefers the Ditko era where we prefer more the Romita era.

No, I didn't know he addressed my application to the Escapist. What did he say? (I refuse to get a Twitter account, partially on the grounds that so many of late - including Bob, have either had public meltdowns and/or lost their jobs because of them). Though I'm guessing it may not have been anything good, and something along the lines of, "How dare this upstart suggest he can my job better than I can?"

You're misinterpreting me. I'm saying that Bob's opinions re: Raimi weren't initially caught up in his opinion of the movie. It was announced that Raimi would no longer be involved in the Spider-Man franchise before a director was chosen, actors were cast, a budget was set, etc. You have to agree that his opinion of Raimi's treatment, when the news first came out, did not, at the time, colour his opinion of the reboot as a whole. You have no evidence of that and it certainly wasn't displayed in his posts from 2010.

That being said, if disliking Sony's attempts at securing the Spider-Man IP DID change Bob's opinion of the writing, the character development, the acting, the special effects, the trailers, the press releases, or the promotional photos, that STILL doesn't count as "bias," because his opinion is grounded upon real events that actually happened. To call that bias would be incorrect by definition. To call that prejudice would be incorrect by definition.

By the way, "Come to me; shitty-looking, unecessaery remake of "Spider-Man"... I want to BASK in your pain." was a reactionary tweet in response to early UK reviews of The Amazing Spider-Man that called it "The Superhero Film for the Twilight Generation". Again, not prejudging, but reacting to an established opinion.

"That being said, if disliking Sony's attempts at securing the Spider-Man IP DID change Bob's opinion of the writing, the character development, the acting, the special effects, the trailers, the press releases, or the promotional photos, that STILL doesn't count as "bias," because his opinion is grounded upon real events that actually happened. To call that bias would be incorrect by definition. To call that prejudice would be incorrect by definition."

Actually, yes by definition and by the situation you just described, that would be prejudice or bias. What is prejudice but a preconceived opinion or an opinion formed without just grounds or sufficient knowledge?

It doesn't matter whether it's 'grounded in real events that actually happened as you say' if we're talking about the evaluation of a film's writing, acting, special effects or whatever. Evaluation of those elements should be based on those elements themselves. The events relating to the IP or Sony's actions aren't really relevant, particularly since much nastier actions have been taken behind-the-scenes of films that are fantastic. In which case an opinion on those events is valid in itself but really is not just grounds to form an opinion on the actual quality of the art produced. For an example, does the fact that the script for 'Coming to America' was ripped off from Art Buchwald mean that that film isn't funny, or the directing by John Landis is bad, or the make-up by Rick Baker in it is terrible?

If Bob thinks the acting or writing or what not are sub-par based on only the elements themselves, then there's no bias. But if as you suggest, the IP issues are having any kind of influence on the opinion of those elements rather than the opinionbeing based on the quality of the elements themselves, then that is a bias, whether to a large degree or small based on whatever amount his view of those issues is influencing his evaluation.

I do agree, and I hope my posts before the one you replied to are more agreeable.

I understand where you take concern with my last posting. Where it differs from your opinion is in my treatment of The Amazing Spider-Man as an entire "institution", which is where I think I differ, in turn, from AmazinglyDisappointed, and where I attempted to accomodate for these differences. It seems to me that he treats every and all aspect of the production and product of The Amazing Spider-Man as one singular thing - meaning that I think he seems to take criticism of one aspect of a film as being derivative of criticism of all aspects (that is to say, I think he is saying that a perceived "bias" is applied to all aspects of the film when really it only has to do with one). I totally disagree with the notion that Bob's criticism of one dimension of the film has ever overlapped into any other, but AmazinglyDisappointed maintains that, and I can only assume this is because he has interpreted Bob's criticism as outlined above. And if this is the case, I think that one's notion of "bias" should be altered/adapted as well, and that's where my post is coming from. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It appears as if we're "on the same team".

I'm a 20+ year fan of Spider-Man in pretty much every form he's ever been in (comic, animated series, movies, games, etc.) I've read damn near every issue of Spider-Man ever published and own every issue going back at least 30 years. I tend to be very positive about most things and always try to find the best in them (for instance, Spider-Man 3, while not as good as the first 2, is nowhere near as bad as people say it is and I would have been quite happy to see Raimi's Spider-Man 4). I say this to give context to the following:

Bob is 100% right about Amazing Spider-Man.

Every flaw he finds with that movie I agree with, and, frankly, I think he blunted his comments a bit to avoid pissing off fans who decided they liked this film before even seeing it.

As for his comments before the movie came out, I think his point is valid there too. The man's job is to comment, not just on movies themselves, but the business surrounding them. If he sees Sony engaging in decisions which seem like naked cash grabs, corporate control of content, and just plain bad film making, is he supposed to ignore that? Is it possible that he might have been looking forward to trashing this movie a bit much? Perhaps, but given the things he was trashing the movie for, I'd say that man looks goddamn prescient.

I think this notion of people being on the 'same team' or the 'other team' is in fact a big part of the problem, not only regarding the furor around this film but in the geek community in general. I'm not on anyone's team. I have my opinion (and in fact in my opinion, Bob is biased regarding this film, a view I've derived not only from things posted on this blog but personal conversations with him), but whether anyone agrees with them or disagrees, I think any form of 'us against them' mentality regarding this is detrimental to the discussion.

@Lord Slithor You don't need twitter to read twitter comments. You can just check the page. And you're in the ballpark of what his response was. :)

Here it is:

"Some guy says he's gonna apply to The Escapist to be a "second opinion" critic, because my Spider-Man review makes me unqualified...I would fucking LOVE to read that pitch-letter, if he actually sends it in."

@motyr Nice try at trying to convince Uncle Tim that he and you are on the same side. Both of you are not on the same side. He corrected you and rightfully so. I don't know what you are playing at but you are trying to grasp any straw you can which is why your arguments are just plain unconvincing.

Your argument that Bob had no prejudice against this movie despite him making comments that make it more than clear reminds me of that laughable claim by Whoopie Goldberg that Mel Gibson was not a racist even though there were tapes of him viciously insulting minorities with many racial slurs.

@c-mccormack Good for you and your claims. Problem is it gives your supposed agreement with Bob no more credibility than his opposition. Lord Slithor and I are big comic book fans and we both quite liked TAS and agree it's a far better representation of Spider-Man than the Raimi movies. The thing with Bob is that he prefers almost everything to be corny, light and juvenile even if that's not how an IP was originally conceived (e.g. Ninja Turtles).

He is not 100% correct because Bob in his reviews made flat out incorrect claims. I corrected him based on how it is in the source material. Read my responses to him in both of the posts for his video reviews to see them.

And I suggest you actually read my posts instead of skimming them. Had you read what I wrote you wouldn't repeat that nonsense about "naked cash grabs".

You're being awfully persistent about this and asking for attention to your posts without giving people the respect of reading theirs. There's no use trying to have a discussion if you're not willing to proceed civilly. I respect Uncle Tim because he raised points that I didn't make clear, and he called me out for using the "team" analogy (enforced by people like you who all-but-insist that Bob is on the "biased" team or you're on a "team" against him), for which I am regretful because it basically amounts to sinking to your level. I'm not going to address you again in conversation regarding this topic, but would like to conclude with assurance that you did not "win", I didn't "lose", and your claims to "facts" are entirely spun to suit your preconceived ends. If you would do me and others the decency of actually reading into what we have to say, I, and many others, would be able to take you much more seriously. And please, research what "bias" actually means. I don't think that you think it means what it really means.

You know Bob, you've said before that wise-cracking Spidey doesn't work in live action, and I have to totally disagree with that, it just didn't work in THIS live action movie. Take a look back to the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, which I thought nailed the corny, cheesy jokes Spidey is always cracking, and just imagine that in live action. It didn't work in this movie, but it definitely can if pulled off correctly. Hell take a look back at Iron Man, esp. in The Avengers with his "Shakespeare in the Park" line to Thor, and that is totally something I could see Spider-Man saying. Hell, that and much of the dialogue just makes me wish Joss Whedon could help out with the dialogue in the Marvel adaptation of Spider-Man if the movie rights ever do get back to them sometime soon.

Yep. Pretty much what I thought. Actually, I DID submit an email to The Escapist. Haven't heard back from them. I can only imagine Bob warned them ahead of time and told them to disregard it. And I also wouldn't be surprised either if they were getting similar letters in the wake of this.

It's a good thing I 'm not going to the Escapist Expo. There was a time where if I met Bob in real life, I'd like to sit down and have a drink with him. Now? I'd probably just want to punch him.

Lastly, if you want a good counterpoint review to Bob's, check out this article from Scott Tipton and his Comics 101 column. This guy's probably an even bigger comic book nerd than Bob is, so I'd say considering that, this guy knows what he's talking about...

I've got to say, I love how anyone who doesn't have time to go back and complete an indepth analysis of every one of the numerous posts you've made on this subject is automatically disqualified from arguing with you. I wish you the best of luck finding people to argue with who have that kind of time to kill.

I don't think your opinion of the movie is wrong, because it's your opinion. I think the movie is a load of crap, and so does Bob. Your problem seems to be that, just because Bob expressed a pessimism about this movie, his views are invalid. You expressed optimism before the movie came out. Does that make your view invalid as well?

Also, not for nothing, but just because someone doesn't like "grim and gritty" doesn't mean he wants everything to be "corny, light and juvenile." There's a whole spectrum in between. You've just siezed on the Ninja Turtles because Bob, like me and a lot of people, know the cartoon series better. I like that version of the Ninja Turtles, but I also hold up Watchmen and Neil Gaiman's Sandman as some of the best comics ever. I wouldn't call those "corny, light and juvenile."

Great stuff, as always. I'd like to thank Bob for posting this, but also Steve and John at the Post-Movie Podcast (since I seem to be having trouble with Itunes at the moment leaving a review, sorry 'bout that) for continuing to offer up such interesting cinema-savvy discussions that are just really a great help in starting the day or relaxing after a hard time at work. Keep up the good work, guys, your podcasts are awesome.

Thanks again for all the small-talk, brain-food and laughs. In all sincerity. Good times :)

http://imgur.com/XXHUf Here is a picture of the virus warning accessing your site is triggering Steven. I wont claim to be the most tech savy person but I've scanned my computer a few times now to make sure it wasn't merely something I'd picked up else where and nothing is showing up. I'm always keen for a some new podcasts but obviously I'm not terribly keen on going back to your site if I'm always going to get infection attempt warnings. Thanks in advance for trying to sort out what's going wrong.

Also, not for nothing, but just because someone doesn't like "grim and gritty" doesn't mean he wants everything to be "corny, light and juvenile."

Total agreement. E.g., my favourite Batman incarnation is probably the Animated Series, which struck the right balance between good, serious storytelling and embracing the inherent ridiculousness of superheroes as a concept. It reminded me of some of my favourite Batman comics, the 70s Bronze Age stuff between the relaxing of the Comics Code Authority and the early 90s Watchmen-ification of everything. That stuff was dark, but still in an over-the-top James Bond sort of way, not "drug use, rape and vulgar language mean it's mature" kind of way.

Re: Anonymous. Sorry to hear about that. All I can say is I've truly done my best to keep the podcast's site virus free, and I know it is. But if your software says beware I know how you feel. It's a trust issue. And a warning like that does make one think twice. There WAS a problem some time ago, but not any more. I guess I have this feeling that your software doesn't have updated information on this site. Just a guess. But I do hope you continue to listen.

FYI for all ... we've just published our new Blu-ray & DVD episode, with Bob as our guest. We just let the conversation take us where it goes, and this time, somehow we traversed into the territory of FLASH GORDON.

Tip Jar (y'know, if you feel like it)

Search This Blog

About Me

Bob is a part-time independent filmmaker, part-time amateur film critic and full time Movie Geek. He is heterosexual, a pisces, and a severely lapsed Catholic. He is a tireless enemy of censorship, considers his personal politics "Libertine" and enjoys acting as a full time irritant to overly serious people of ALL political stripes.